What would you say are the 'unspoken rules' about giving critique?

[smokesalty]

Heyo, I like to occasionally critique stories for people (only if asked ofc) and I always tend to be a little worried that I come across as harsh by accident.

I tend to write a lot to explain myself (and I provide my own examples in the critique as well to show what I mean) but I always end up cutting back on my points because I'm worried someone is going to see how much I've written and go "Oh what I've made must suck then" - which really isn't the case.

I usually am seemingly harsh because that's how I go about editing my own work- being honest with what works and doesn't with myself helps me improve my own writing.

But yeah. I want to help people improve but my intent is to come off as constructive not like a nit-picky know-it-all because I am still learning myself. My goal is not to push anyone down with their work but to help them improve their work. I am also not in favour of being super sugarcoaty.

[MeltingCORE]

I don't think being honest or detailed is being harsh. Some people are absolutely more sensitive when it comes to their creations, so they may have a hard time taking critique. Personally, there's only one thing I dislike when it comes to critique and it's something I used to see on dA frequently. It's people who will say things purposely insulting because they think they're being funny. (ie "this looks like **** what's wrong with you my little brother draws better") It's unhelpful and usually they're ripping on beginner artists (which is morbid).

Luckily, these Simon Cowell wannabes have died out for the most part! I haven't seen on Tapas, anyways. I think you're fine and I'm glad you enjoy helping other creators!

[Lensing]

What MeltingCore wrote.
"Practice more" is something which shouldn´t be written in a critique, it doesn´t help and also doesn´t make
sense when you don´t tell them what to practice.

I stopped getting critique online from amateurs/learning artists/strangers and only get critique from teachers/mentors and that´s what
I would recommend to everyone. I love harsh critique and those people know what they have to tell you to get better. Good teachers
put the focus on one thing and then 95% of what they write is what you can do to get better at it

[TheLemmaLlama]

Agreed; I think any level of detail is fair game if the artist (or writer or whatever, but I'll just say 'artist' for simplicity :P) asked for critique :] I'd say the most important rule though is that the artist is not obligated to follow your advice or even be grateful for it.

Basically, remember it's possible that you weren't aware of the vision behind the piece, and the artist may have asked for the purpose of future experimentation and never intended to edit the piece you're critiquing or apply the advice (even if they agree with it) to the remainder of the 'series' the piece you're critiquing belongs to for the sake of consistency :]

And this might be a hot take, but I think it's okay to critique artists who didn't ask for critique. The art community has fallen into a culture where we frown on critiquing anyone who didn't ask for it, but I think that's because so many people come in with a critique that doesn't help the artist fulfil their actual vision, and when they artist disagrees with the critique and defends their choices, they're accused of being oversensitive/unable to take criticism/having a fragile ego. As long as a critic isn't entitled about the advice they're giving and expect the artist to be a good little student who listens to everything they said with gratitude, a critique is ultimately just a comment on publicly posted content. Imo a better solution is to fix the underlying problem instead of putting a blanket ban on critiquing anyone unless they actively request it

[smokesalty]

I agree! If they asked for critique, I will usually take the time to make a nice cohesive explanation of what I personally think could be improved, and I make sure to put a disclaimer beforehand just so the artist is aware that my critique is quite subjective. No-one is expected to implement every bit of critique.

I think being able critique the work without knowing the vision can be important too- how does the artist know that readers are understanding their work the way they intended? Because while I as a creator certainly have a vision for my work, I need the audience to be engaged in order to fully see that vision through!

And this might be a hot take, but I think it's okay to critique artists who didn't ask for critique.

I think this depends on the type of critique I think it's hard to word it when it's unasked for, which is why I only critique on request. I don't think there's anything wrong with critiquing artists but there's always that worry that someone's gonna get upset tbh

[Noorie]

My algorithm when writing critique is
1. Write what I like;
2. Write what I see as mistakes and some options how they could be solved;
3.Emphasize that it's just my opinion and I might be wrong;
4. Say again what I like and wish good luck.

[TheLemmaLlama]

I think being able critique the work without knowing the vision can be important too- how does the artist know that readers are understanding their work the way they intended? Because while I as a creator certainly have a vision for my work, I need the audience to be engaged in order to fully see that vision through!

Oh absolutely; the fact that you don't know the artist's intentions is why a fresh pair of eyes is so valuable! It's just we should be aware that this is the case for us as critics, and hence there's a good chance a lot of our advice would not be applicable to what the artist actually wants to do :]

[NickRowler]

A critique is not a review. If you don’t care for something, you should break down why and give tips to help.

For example, if you think a series has bad art, don’t just say “I hate the art” or “Your art is bad.” This doesn’t really give them anything to focus on and might overwhelm some people. It is better to point of aspects of the art like saying “work on anatomy” and maybe give them links to resources that would help.

It is also good to also point out what someone did well so they focus more on fixing problems. For example, if someone has bad anatomy but is good at drawing hair, than compliment their skills on drawing hair.

I also agree that you should not be throwing critiques at people who didn’t ask for them. Especially if you are the type of person who critiques things by saying “your art sucks”, this usually does nothing but piss off the artist and it makes you look like an entitled troll.

Another thing is to not nitpick, don’t Cinema Sins someone’s work. A critique isn’t just racking up “bad things”, it should be designed to help someone improve.

[IndigoShirtProd]

These are less points for someone giving a critique and more for those receiving them. Personally I think there are things people should be doing when they get a critique, regardless of the quality.

1: If the critique is not vague and destructive, thank the person who gave it you for their time, even if you don't agree with what they said.

2: If you don't agree with what someone said, do not spend your time writing a detailed rebuttal to their critique. For one, it's unlikely that whomever is giving the criticism is going to become a fan or needs the clarification on the content they reviewed. For two, they likely won't care and it will come of as you not being able to take criticism. (I'm not saying to not give context or clarify certain things, but don’t go point by point trying to refute their critique. )

3: Lastly, specify what you want the critique to be on so you're not blindsided by critics discussing things you weren't prepared for or expecting them to talk about. When creators ask for critique, don't specify, and then complain about the criticism they got, I have a hard time taking them seriously.

As a side note, understand that people critique differently, some might focus on the negative, others not. Some will be detailed and others might be vague. You may not like every critique you get and that's fine! The best part about getting criticism is that you don’t have to listen to it if you don't want to. But don't make the people who spent time reviewing your work feel like they wasted it. You can be upset or angry, but most importantly, you should be grateful.

[DualDragons]

Really the only unspoken rule I use is that I never like to do unsollicited criticism. Because for someone like me who is rather soft at heart and does not have the strongest mentality it can really sting when people barge in and give their critics (which is to help
naturally). In that case it feels more demotivating than helpful (and maybe rude depending on how the critic approaches the receiver).

Alternatively if somebody asks if they can critique or atleast say they are going to critique your work then you can prepare for it and really take it to heart. You know that the critic is taking their time to ask if you want tips and wants to help you.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes when I see other people's art and work I do want to critique and help them out, but most of the time it's for people who are actually looking for critiques or ask for help. It's a matter of whether the receiving party is looking for and willing to hear a critique. So ask, and if they don't want critique then don't offer it.

[Lady_T_Musings]

These are my rules

1. I would only give it if asked or if the creator specifically stated they were looking to improve and wanted to hear others' thoughts. I mean true growth is important and many of us want to keep getting better, but some folks are aware of what they are making and how it looks and are happy to continue making their art the way they like it. Even if they are committing what some may view as art "faux pas". It's really none of my business to insert my opinions on them unwarranted.

2. Be specific. Bad and good aren't helpful language when critiquing. You have to be able to articulate what bad/good means in the context of what you're trying to say about the creator's work.

3. Be honest, but also be encouraging. It's good to be truthful when critiquing, but even when focusing on things that can be improved, I like to point out things that work well too, or that I simply just like because it hit with me (this can be color choices, line variation, clothing, expressions, etc) bc at the end of the day this is someones hard work and dedication. I want to see them motivated to continue, not go, what's the point if everything I do is bad.

[LCT_m_a_d]

Think in terms of impact and patterns

One of the best critiques I've ever received was with my first comic. It was along the lines that my panels were boring because all of my views looked the same and that he would like to see me switch up my shots. There are some mistakes that you fix with practice and experience. This was different.

It made me rethink my patterns with art that had a critical impact. One of the main reasons I started incorporated my POV experiments in art.

I really wish I could pick that artists brain now and get more critique like that.

[BoomerZ]

Critique should follow a couple routes.
1: technically is it a well made comics. Do you understand the story and are not confused reading it? Is the font easy to read and you know who is talking? Do you get lost in what is going on?
2: Did the author achieve what they were trying to do? Even if you don't like the style of art or subject matter, did the author tell the story effectively.
3: Is the art up to the abilities of the artist. You judge the artwork to the artist, not the finished product. A first time 10 year old artist is not the same as a 35 year old artist. Artwork is a HUGE part of comics but a great story can carry average art, but no amount of awesome art can carry a shitty story. Art should be passable and pleasing to the reader, that is the low bar. Anything more is a happy bonus.
4: Is the story a story and not a setting. Far to many stories are just a setting but have no story. The comic doesn't seem to go anywhere.
5. Does the story make you want to read it. Not the subject matter, as that is opinion. I'm talking about the way something pulls you in to see more. The set up of the acts, the follow through with set-up. These are suppose to be stories. Stores have a structure that works. This structure has been tested and show to work so trying to reinvent the wheel usually doesn't work.

From these couple of things you can suggest what they can do to improve or build on their already good work. Also the way you present your critique is critical. "you suck" is a extreme example but only pointing out the bad will get some one to blow you off. Same as only giving the good doesn't help anyone. Profession critique usually has the "critique sandwich". Start with something good, middle of something bad, finish with something good. The author will usually take it better in this form.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

1. Try not to get upset. ^^; If you feel your heart racing while you write, it's time to step away from the keyboard for a bit.

2. Always explain why. Every piece of criticism should have a reason behind it, whether it's personal taste or more established literary convention. Also, you should know the difference between the two.

3. Don't hold back. The only instances in which I simply don't say things is when it's clear that the author just isn't at a sufficient skill level to make use of ANY critique (it happens...). Usually, when I feel like I'm getting too harsh, I try to reword things, or I pick just one example of something sketchy and focus on that to get the point across.

4. Give suggestions! If you're good enough to point out what's wrong, you should be good enough to figure out how it could be fixed. I try to do this at least once in every critique, even when it comes to professional work.

[system]

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.